get_report_queries_asset_services

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the HTTP method ('GET') and the action ('Retrieve'), implying a read-only operation. It does not mention error behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects, so the agent is left with an incomplete safety picture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and endpoint, then immediately gives the relevant parameter mapping. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it optimally scannable for an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the endpoint and parameter placement, but it omits any mention of required authentication, expected output structure (though an output schema exists), or common error conditions. Given zero annotations, the description alone is not enough for fully confident invocation, though it provides the essential starting points.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coveragecars, so the description must add meaning. It does map path_params to 'route IDs', query to 'filters and pagination', and headers to 'required request headers', which compensates for three of four parameters. However, it says nothing about the 'body' parameter, and the descriptions are generic (e.g., 'route IDs' is ambiguous without further detail).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('asset services'), and explicitly references the endpoint, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the large sibling set (e.g., get_r_report_queries_asset_software), so the agent must rely on the name to distinguish.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit parameter placement instructions ('Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers'), which guides construction of the call. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this vs. sibling report-query tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.